MARGARET PALAI Vs. SAVITRI PALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-12-1992 and 6-1-1993 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chatrapur in Title Suit No. 76 of 199o dismissing the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 is the appellant. She filed the suit for partition of the suit property along with mesne profits and costs. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are her daughters. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 3 died. Therefore, her name was deleted.

(3.) The case of plaintiff No. 1 in a nutshell is that she married to one Debendra Polai in the year 1973 as per Hindu customs and adjusted herself in the Hindu customs of the family. Debendra died on 17-5-1987. The suit schedule lands are joint family properties of Debendra and his brother. After death of Debendra, She became helpless and demanded partition of her husband's share but all her attempts became fruitless. During settlement operation, all the properties were recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 giving an impression that Debendra died unmarried and issueless. It was further claimed that defendant No. 2 and Debendra had joint lease of salt cultivation wherefrom defendant No. 2 was getting an average income. The plaintiffs, being the members of the joint family, are entitled to a share from the properties in question. Accordingly, finding no other way, they filed the aforesaid suit. Defendant No. 1 is the mother, defendant No. 2 is the brother and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sisters of Debendra. All the defendants filed a common written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are neither Hindus nor the married wife and daughter of Debendra. Debendra was in love with a Christian lady. He converted his religion to Christianity and demanded his share from the joint family property of his father Govinda Polai. Therefore, there was a family settlement and Rs. 1 lakh in cash and 50 tolas of gold ornaments were given to Debendra towards his share in the joint family property and he severed all his connections from their family and properties. Defendants claimed that they had no knowledge about the alleged marriage of plaintiff No. 1 with Debendra. The alleged marriage certificate was false and baseless. Debendra had kept a concubine at Ganja and died issueless in the year 1987. The alleged lease of salt cultivation was purely the personal belonging of defendant No. 2 and temporary in nature. Hence, the same is not liable for partition. On the aforesaid assertions, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.